The Fort Hood Assassin is Not Alone

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Nov 9, 2009 at 19:44

The tragedy of the Fort Hood massacre has in its integral message several issues that need exposure to the reality of our times, or we face a situation far worse than the deaths of 13 military and other folk, and the nightmarish injuries to the other victims. The American citizen looks to his/her government for the assurance of safety from enemies, foreign and abroad, and find that even in the rigors of the methodologies practiced to safeguard each individual from harm, there are failures.

Was this attack of the 'militant' Nidal Malik Hasan a failure of the safeguards we expect to find in our secure environments, or was the failure of a more insidious nature, of a negligence to the facts that should not have been overlooked. The true perception is that no one else made him do anything he was not prepared to do when correctly viewing his ideological background.

When the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred, we the people were advised that the perpetrators were Muslim militants, who, after meticulous planning, sometimes in open disregard for the system that naively allowed anyone access under the auspices of the freedoms and liberties, such being enjoyed by a peaceful society that lived in an oblivious calm not found in too many other places in the world. The loss of the twin towers changed all of that, replacing our lost sense of security with a paranoia directly pointed at the mentality of the attackers, that of their Muslim sensibilities. Other Muslims cried foul (some in feigned outrage, others in a reluctance to acknowledge that any of their own in America could perpetrate such a deed), citing various cover articles to prevent their association with the murderous acts of the high-jackers. The more 'moderate' Muslims on the various communities throughout America and other more western nations now had to deal with a 'guilt by association', and an initial response to the attacks by the former President of the United States made that association pointedly known. Their fears of profiling became a reality, and still is a major issue.

But the attacks did something else, something not prepared for from quite some time ago, and something there appears still not being very well handled. In the association of worldwide activist Muslim sensibilities that were found to be the root cause of the intentions of the high-jackers, the same connections were already part of the manpower fabric that makes up the American military, something subliminal prior to the Iranian hostage situation in the 1970's, through the heated battles of the MIddle East during which times the militant Muslim sensibilities were open and nefarious against the America military and its closest ally, Israel. The American military had people of Muslim backgrounds serving, yet there did not seem to be the open simmering of antipathies we see being reported today.

If one is to understand the Muslim mentalities against the western sensibilities and the collateral association with Israel, one need only look at Israel as mentioned by one of the others in this post who pointed out Israel's issues with such things. There is no mistaking that militant activism of those with Muslim sensibilities are insidiously working and worming their way into various venues, either to be a covert and silent part of an organism waiting for the right moment to release the hatred instilled by a correct reading of the Quran, or to engage in the overt activity of those non-governmental agencies whose intentions are to promote Islam as a 'peaceful' sector of a society they are intent to overthrow.

Now, it is this reader's contention that the use of the term 'jihad' is a diversionary method of labeling to avert the attention to the underlying problem, that of the militant mentality of the violent activist (in reality anarchists utilizing it as a cover for their diabolical schemes) whose sole purpose is to use terror for the sake of domination by any means to obtain power. Following the words written in the Quran, this provide the means for a justification of acts against lawfully formed societies, by which servitude under the duress of the brutality and the terrorism is achieved and control is maintained by its brute force. In a peaceful and lawful societal setting where freedom and liberty are encouraged and engaged, the anarchist mentality must interject its brutality in order to compel that subservience. This is seen where militant Muslim activities employ the terrorist practices. It remains to be seen if this is what was resident in the mind of the Fort Hood attacker, but one would have to understand that Major Hasan had already considered this as he finally released his latent hostilities towards the American Army and the American way of life that he was sworn and supposed to protect.

Come now to the crux of the matter, that there is now the suspicion, whether fully justified or not, that there are other such subliminal thoughts being harbored by similar servicemen, having joined the American military in spite of their latent allegiance to a religious acknowledgment of antipathy against the American way of life. In hardcore circles of Islam, being a 'moderate' is like being apostate, not being fully true to the religion. How many times have we heard the activist imams calling for Muslims in the American military to be true to their Muslim heritage and take up action against their fellow servicemen/women. Truly be wary, for the time is quickly approaching when one will not be able to discern friend or foe, and when the back is turned, find out too late. Ask the British Armed forces who lost five recently, and of others similarly lost because of a trust misplaced, of an ideology not correctly observed.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".